Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dason B. Melius, a pretrial detainee held at Contra Costa County's West County Detention Facility, filed a pro se complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that on October 7, 2024, after he arrived at the county's Martinez Detention Facility, Deputy Button and other unnamed deputies and medical staff used unnecessary force on him and denied him adequate medical care. Only Button is named in the caption. Melius also asked the court to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
As the court summarized the allegations, Melius asked Button for medical attention for chest pain, and Button instead escorted him to an adjacent cell while holding his left hand behind his back and bending it upward with a lot of pressure. Other deputies then cuffed him and took him toward Intake, and on the way he says he heard and felt two loud popping or cracking sounds from his left wrist and told the deputies it had been broken. When deputies demanded he sit on a stool for medical attention, they allegedly jumped on him as he began to sit, and a female deputy stomped on his bare toes. A male nurse took his blood pressure but did not examine the wrist. These are unproven allegations, and the court made no findings. The order is a screening decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, with pro se pleadings liberally construed.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the complaint with leave to amend; it is not a final judgment on the merits. A post-arraignment pretrial detainee's excessive force claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment and requires only that the force purposely or knowingly used was objectively unreasonable, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene (Kingsley v. Hendrickson). The court found the allegations insufficient as pleaded and told Melius to add specific facts bearing on reasonableness, including the need for force, the amount used, the extent of injury, any effort to temper force, the security problem, the perceived threat, and whether he resisted.
The medical care claim also arises under the Fourteenth Amendment and is tested under the four-element objective deliberate indifference standard of Gordon v. County of Orange, which demands more than negligence but less than subjective intent, something akin to reckless disregard. It was likewise dismissed with leave to amend so Melius can plead facts showing the defendants' conduct was objectively unreasonable and caused his injuries. For both claims he must name each individual defendant and link each to the alleged wrongdoing, showing actual and proximate causation.
The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances, but said it will consider appointment on its own motion and seek volunteer counsel if later warranted. Melius has 28 days to file a First Amended Complaint that is simple and concise, carries the case number, and stands alone, because it supersedes the original and omitted claims and defendants will not be considered. If he fails to file a proper amended complaint in time, the action will be dismissed. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 3.
Key Takeaways
- A pretrial detainee need show only that force was objectively unreasonable, but must still plead specific facts about the circumstances in which it was used.
- Detainee medical care claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment and require facts showing an unreasonable failure to abate a serious risk, causing injury.
- Group allegations against unnamed deputies and medical staff are not enough; each defendant must be named and tied to specific conduct causing the deprivation.
- Counsel will not be appointed absent exceptional circumstances, although the court may revisit appointment later on its own motion.
- An amended complaint replaces the original, so every claim and defendant must be restated or it will not be considered.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court screening order with no precedential weight. It applies settled Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit standards rather than making new law. Its practical value is as a reminder of what a pro se detainee must plead at the screening stage under Kingsley and Gordon.
Nothing has been decided on the merits. Whether the force was objectively unreasonable, whether the medical response was inadequate, and who the responsible individuals are all remain open. If Melius files a sufficient amended complaint, the court will screen it again; if he does not, the case will be dismissed.